Supreme Court orders do-over on key software patent ruling

Justices wonder if online ad schemes are patentable inventions.

The United States Supreme Court signaled skepticism about broad software patents Monday when it ordered reconsideration of an online advertising patent. The high court asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reconsider its decision approving the patent in light of a March Supreme Court decision restricting patents on medical diagnostic techniques.

The online ad patent, granted to a company called Ultramercial, covers the concept of allowing users to watch a pre-roll advertisement as an alternative to paying for premium content. Ultramercial has demanded licensing fees from several online video sites, including Hulu and YouTube. One target of Ultramercial's legal threats, a company called WildTangent, challenged Ultramercial's "invention" as merely an abstract idea not eligible for patent protection.

A new machine

The Supreme Court has ruled several ideas to be outside the bounds of what can be patented, including an algorithm for converting between binary number formats, the concept of hedging against the risk of commodity price changes, and the process of adjusting the dosage of a drug based on measured levels of a particular chemical in a patient's blood. WildTangent argued that Ultramercial's patent was so abstract that it did not qualify for patent protection under these precedents.

But in a September 2011 decision, the Federal Circuit (which has jurisdiction over all patent appeals) upheld the patent. Chief Judge Randall Rader wrote for the court that the Ultramercial patent "does not simply claim the age-old idea that advertising can serve as currency. Instead [it] discloses a practical application of this idea."

We've written before about this court's belief that math is only patentable if it's complicated. Similarly, in the Ultramercial decision, the court argued that the patent was valid because implementing its claims was "likely to require intricate and complex computer programming" and because the patent involved a "specific application to the Internet and a cyber-market environment." The "extensive computer interface" required to practice the patent renders it non-abstract, Rader wrote.

The Federal Circuit also rejected the argument that the patent ran afoul of the Supreme Court's traditional rule against patenting mathematical algorithms. "A programmed computer contains circuitry unique to that computer," Rader wrote. "That 'new machine' could be claimed in terms of a complex array of hardware circuits, or more efficiently, in terms of the programming that facilitates a unique function."

Do-over

When the Supreme Court decides a case, it often asks lower courts to re-examine related cases to see if the high court's reasoning in the new opinion changes the outcome. A week after the Supreme Court invalidated a medical diagnostic patent back in March, it ordered a reconsideration of gene patents in light of that opinion. Now software patents like Ultramercial's will also get a fresh look under the same precedent.

This week's decision to send the Ultramercial case back for another review doesn't necessarily mean a majority of justices disagree with the original decision. But Julie Samuels of the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that it does at least mean the Supreme Court thinks its March decision is relevant to the validity of such patents. This can only be good news for critics of broad software and business method patents.

We asked Samuels to weigh in on how the Federal Circuit ought to evaluate the Ultramercial patent. She said that the Supreme Court's March decision "made clear that tying patentable steps to an otherwise unpatentable idea does not make it patentable." The concept of giving people premium content after they watch ads is an unpatentable, abstract idea, she said. Judge Rader argued that "complex computer programming" required to implement the patent made it non-abstract, but Samuels countered that "while it might be complicated, such programming merely represents the type of conventional steps that can't save an otherwise abstract idea."

Samuels also argued that "merely tying an abstract idea to the Internet" isn't enough to render it patentable. "Everything we're doing is online" these days, she said. Under the reasoning of the original Ultramercial decision, people can "take all kinds of abstract ideas, say it's happening on the Internet, and get a patent."

Still, Samuels told us there are no easy answers. "I don't envy the judges" deciding these cases, she said. "It gets complicated." She said that one important principle was that "things that you can accomplish in your brain" aren't eligible for patent protection.

Of course, the obvious question is whether all software patents would be ineligible for protection under that rule. After all, all computer programs consist of mathematical formulas that could, in principle, be performed by a human being with a pencil and paper.

"There's a good argument that all software is too abstract to be patented," she said. Indeed there is; it's one we've been making for several years.

Whatever. It doesn't pass the "non-obvious" test, if it hadn't been marginalized to the point of meaninglessness. The ruling is good news, but it shouldn't even be necessary, the patent system wasn't created as a make work project for lawyers.

So the patent is simply for having a system that allows a content consumer to choose:

a. pay for contentb. watch adverts

that is all?

I guess that my personal code of morals says that doesn't seem like something that should be patentable but I can't quite articulate why.

They added 'over the internet' to the end (or in 201x terms, 'on a mobile device').

So is it a bit of code that is patented or anyone attempting to write some code that reflects the patent?

From reading the links of this article (very informative thanks Tim Lee) it seems that 'Business Method' patents exist and that they are about as fucking stupid as the google oracle api fiasco with as little clarity.

So it reads to me that the problem more than anything is that the legislators are too scared to step in and say yes or no to these fairly 'common sense' practices being patented.

Hence I guess why the article story asking for reconsideration has occurred.

So is it a bit of code that is patented or anyone attempting to write some code that reflects the patent?

The actual code is protected (rather unquestionably) by copyright. You can't just swipe some guy's code. Patents cover techniques and processes - in this case, the act of showing ads online to non-paying users before letting them see content.

The patent office really just need to expand the definition of prior art.

"Is there something to this other than 'X', with 'on the internet/on a mobile device' tacked on? No? No patent."

E.g. Hyperlinks. These are functionally equivalent to page numbers in a book, foot notes, etc. So, a hyperlink would be "A mechanism for directing a user to specific content on the internet". With, of course, some extra wordiness because lawyers love thesauri.

Not quite. Novel = not already patented. Non-obvious means not obvious (to one skilled in the art).

You may want to recalibrate your sarcasm detector. aliasundercover was talking about what non-obvious means in practice, and they are pretty much right. Even being already patented doesn't always stop you from getting a patent.

Also, novel doesn't mean not already patented. It means not already existing. The latin root of it means "new." Most inventions are not patented, so the majority of actual prior art is larger than what has been patented.

A side trip,however valid here in context.. Can anybody tell me,when there is a copyright created, it is actually filed with the Library Of Congress, having a valid LOC # and a file with the copyright office ? Then that is the actual identity controlling validity of a copyrighted item and/or its claim to having a copyright. Having paid a certain filing fee to record it with the LOC.*

* i dont want to know what becomes of a 'c' on a page here.

Realize there are differences in continuing publications (and types) which publish at various times,and perhaps there is a system to encapsulate this .

When copyrights are talking about 71 year terms,.. and as this is software being told in this article,.. etc.,.. mean the actual authority having given the right to an author. Anologous to not being able to drive an automobile since may have filled out the application ,but not actually having received the liscence - doesn't give that right to do so .

A side trip,however valid here in context.. Can anybody tell me,when there is a copyright created, it is actually filed with the Library Of Congress, having a valid LOC # and a file with the copyright office ? Then that is the actual identity controlling validity of a copyrighted item and/or its claim to having a copyright. Having paid a certain filing fee to record it with the LOC.*

For the past few decades in the United States, copyright is automatic when the work is created. You don't need to file anything.

Filing might help if you ever need to defend your copyright, however. I don't know what actually happens if you do that.

Sure, Tim, you were saying that software patents should be invalidated just before Bilski, too. And the Supreme Court benchslapped the CAFC over that, pointing out that Congress is the group that makes the rules on what is and is not patentable ("statutory subject matter").

Face reality. Software is big business. It's not a happy hippy commune any more. (Then again, it never was.)

Oh, and what's the difference, exactly, between a method implemented in software, and the same method implemented in hardware? (Hint: the answer is "none, really".)

A side trip,however valid here in context.. Can anybody tell me,when there is a copyright created, it is actually filed with the Library Of Congress, having a valid LOC # and a file with the copyright office ? Then that is the actual identity controlling validity of a copyrighted item and/or its claim to having a copyright. Having paid a certain filing fee to record it with the LOC.*

For the past few decades in the United States, copyright is automatic when the work is created. You don't need to file anything.

Filing might help if you ever need to defend your copyright, however. I don't know what actually happens if you do that.

yeah I would like some one to clarify this because there is no point of reference if there is no loc #. Mean "i wrote a 'c'in the software back underneath code line 4 billion,and I've been taking liscencing fees since that time. Haven't had any problem with collecting royalties. Or paying taxes on them. Not really any problem with catching software pirates either" .

See what I mean.

From my understanding anything that has ever been legally copyrighted has a record of it in the LOC. Much the same as that system used in the Patent office clarifying itself as having been patented.

There is different rationale for the system though - periodicals,magazines,etc. These may enter only on occasion and act with some kind of mechanism to preface at casual the number,number(s) etc.

Must be much the same or similiarity in many European,and modern societies. Some one to clarify would be appreciated.

You may want to recalibrate your sarcasm detector. aliasundercover was talking about what non-obvious means in practice, and they are pretty much right. Even being already patented doesn't always stop you from getting a patent.

No, it's working fine. Yours, not so much.

A lot of people conflate novel with non-obvious. A valid patent needs, amongst other things, to be both. There are no valid patents on software.

A side trip,however valid here in context.. Can anybody tell me,when there is a copyright created, it is actually filed with the Library Of Congress, having a valid LOC # and a file with the copyright office ? Then that is the actual identity controlling validity of a copyrighted item and/or its claim to having a copyright. Having paid a certain filing fee to record it with the LOC.*

For the past few decades in the United States, copyright is automatic when the work is created. You don't need to file anything.

Filing might help if you ever need to defend your copyright, however. I don't know what actually happens if you do that.

yeah I would like some one to clarify this because there is no point of reference if there is no loc #. Mean "i wrote a 'c'in the software back underneath code line 4 billion,and I've been taking liscencing fees since that time. Haven't had any problem with collecting royalties. Or paying taxes on them. Not really any problem with catching software pirates either" .

See what I mean.

From my understanding anything that has ever been legally copyrighted has a record of it in the LOC. Much the same as that system used in the Patent office clarifying itself as having been patented.

There is different rationale for the system though - periodicals,magazines,etc. These may enter only on occasion and act with some kind of mechanism to preface at casual the number,number(s) etc.

Must be much the same or similiarity in many European,and modern societies. Some one to clarify would be appreciated.

In the US, copyright is automatic once something is fixed on a medium. That said, you cannot sue over a copyright unless it's been registered before initiating said suit (so far as I can tell, there's no grandfathering here, meaning you can register it the day before you sue for infringement, and that won't mean you can only go after them for use after registration).

This was one argument that partly came up in Oracle v Google, as Oracle simply reigstered "Java," but was attempting to claim infringement of individual components (which were not individually registered, and the "world as a whole" was not filed as a collective work; the argument was standing to sue since the API's weren't registered themselves; we're of course ignoring the fact that APIs are, by nature, functional and therefor ineligible for copyright protection).

A side trip,however valid here in context.. Can anybody tell me,when there is a copyright created, it is actually filed with the Library Of Congress, having a valid LOC # and a file with the copyright office ? Then that is the actual identity controlling validity of a copyrighted item and/or its claim to having a copyright. Having paid a certain filing fee to record it with the LOC.*

For the past few decades in the United States, copyright is automatic when the work is created. You don't need to file anything.

Filing might help if you ever need to defend your copyright, however. I don't know what actually happens if you do that.

yeah I would like some one to clarify this because there is no point of reference if there is no loc #. Mean "i wrote a 'c'in the software back underneath code line 4 billion,and I've been taking liscencing fees since that time. Haven't had any problem with collecting royalties. Or paying taxes on them. Not really any problem with catching software pirates either" .

See what I mean.

From my understanding anything that has ever been legally copyrighted has a record of it in the LOC. Much the same as that system used in the Patent office clarifying itself as having been patented.

There is different rationale for the system though - periodicals,magazines,etc. These may enter only on occasion and act with some kind of mechanism to preface at casual the number,number(s) etc.

Must be much the same or similiarity in many European,and modern societies. Some one to clarify would be appreciated.

In the US, copyright is automatic once something is fixed on a medium. That said, you cannot sue over a copyright unless it's been registered before initiating said suit (so far as I can tell, there's no grandfathering here, meaning you can register it the day before you sue for infringement, and that won't mean you can only go after them for use after registration).

This was one argument that partly came up in Oracle v Google, as Oracle simply reigstered "Java," but was attempting to claim infringement of individual components (which were not individually registered, and the "world as a whole" was not filed as a collective work; the argument was standing to sue since the API's weren't registered themselves; we're of course ignoring the fact that APIs are, by nature, functional and therefor ineligible for copyright protection).

Your statement is interesting in that 'fixed on a medium' I believe is simply conotation of a 'motion to copyright',rather than an exact copyright- that is something which is done previous to do so (as I mentioned as putting a 'c'on paper situation). The idea that 'fixed'on a medium however,and registered,I would like to infer to the Supreme Courts idea that 'an email has no expectation of privacy',and that while an email may be 'fixed on a medium',your description would might imply that an email would have the expectation of copyright.

Thus motion filed.- in simularity of descriptions. I would file a motion that my emails are copyrighted.

There is certainly the ideal that copyright is not a 'civil right' (although measured to the restraints of common law),and that contributively it is an aristocratic idealogue in precondition for being so.

Believe you are only right about 15% of the description. Maybe somebody can fill in the blanks,for example there is probably a link to the library of congress,that directly links to the form/application for copyright- that shows fees,filing requirements etc. Date lines,media type examples.

Certainly though if what you said was true the rest of the 85%. Emails would be copyrighted. A much simpler take to what can be a stake in the copyright idea. A copyright lawyer will just sit there and look,they will not say anything most likely.

I had in an earler post refered to the idea of the constitution in which 'freedom of the press' was actually the 'right to print'. That statement is mostly true,and is not entirely not true,it is moreso a definition of the same in a,and b. That is definition 2. I mean to imply that for example an email,because its medium is electronic,is not a medium contrasted to: " because it is 'print' it is afixed to a medium".This is the functional situation. Implying for example,the Library of Congress itself is in danger of copyright law when it will encapsulate 'copy' (i'll use "reproduction") of works that are to be despensed to that medium.

Like I mentioned some one will answer with something more realized as modern day practice. Only will show the situation as it is however.We might live longer knowing that your email was print,reproducable,but copyrighted for 75 years. Howebeit,it should have had a loc #. To be defendable,or to be 'authorized'to be so. .. where I am asking ..if any render,or reader would have been notified of said copyright.

Would certainly be on the side of a 'registered copyright',rather than a non-registered copyright,if it was that my intention was the 'expectation of copyright'. This would be more than my expectation since a registered copyright would be fact,with nothing precipitous. Loc #s are an easier way to validate,and refer to any way.

A side trip,however valid here in context.. Can anybody tell me,when there is a copyright created, it is actually filed with the Library Of Congress, having a valid LOC # and a file with the copyright office ? Then that is the actual identity controlling validity of a copyrighted item and/or its claim to having a copyright. Having paid a certain filing fee to record it with the LOC.*

For the past few decades in the United States, copyright is automatic when the work is created. You don't need to file anything.

Filing might help if you ever need to defend your copyright, however. I don't know what actually happens if you do that.

yeah I would like some one to clarify this because there is no point of reference if there is no loc #. Mean "i wrote a 'c'in the software back underneath code line 4 billion,and I've been taking liscencing fees since that time. Haven't had any problem with collecting royalties. Or paying taxes on them. Not really any problem with catching software pirates either" .

See what I mean.

From my understanding anything that has ever been legally copyrighted has a record of it in the LOC. Much the same as that system used in the Patent office clarifying itself as having been patented.

There is different rationale for the system though - periodicals,magazines,etc. These may enter only on occasion and act with some kind of mechanism to preface at casual the number,number(s) etc.

Must be much the same or similiarity in many European,and modern societies. Some one to clarify would be appreciated.

In the US, copyright is automatic once something is fixed on a medium. That said, you cannot sue over a copyright unless it's been registered before initiating said suit (so far as I can tell, there's no grandfathering here, meaning you can register it the day before you sue for infringement, and that won't mean you can only go after them for use after registration).

This was one argument that partly came up in Oracle v Google, as Oracle simply reigstered "Java," but was attempting to claim infringement of individual components (which were not individually registered, and the "world as a whole" was not filed as a collective work; the argument was standing to sue since the API's weren't registered themselves; we're of course ignoring the fact that APIs are, by nature, functional and therefor ineligible for copyright protection).

Your statement is interesting in that 'fixed on a medium' I believe is simply conotation of a 'motion to copyright',rather than an exact copyright- that is something which is done previous to do so (as I mentioned as putting a 'c'on paper situation). The idea that 'fixed'on a medium however,and registered,I would like to infer to the Supreme Courts idea that 'an email has no expectation of privacy',and that while an email may be 'fixed on a medium',your description would might imply that an email would have the expectation of copyright.

Thus motion filed.- in simularity of descriptions. I would file a motion that my emails are copyrighted.

There is certainly the ideal that copyright is not a 'civil right' (although measured to the restraints of common law),and that contributively it is an aristocratic idealogue in precondition for being so.

Believe you are only right about 15% of the description. Maybe somebody can fill in the blanks,for example there is probably a link to the library of congress,that directly links to the form/application for copyright- that shows fees,filing requirements etc. Date lines,media type examples.

Certainly though if what you said was true the rest of the 85%. Emails would be copyrighted. A much simpler take to what can be a stake in the copyright idea. A copyright lawyer will just sit there and look,they will not say anything most likely.

I had in an earler post refered to the idea of the constitution in which 'freedom of the press' was actually the 'right to print'. That statement is mostly true,and is not entirely not true,it is moreso a definition of the same in a,and b. That is definition 2. I mean to imply that for example an email,because its medium is electronic,is not a medium contrasted to: " because it is 'print' it is afixed to a medium".This is the functional situation. Implying for example,the Library of Congress itself is in danger of copyright law when it will encapsulate 'copy' (i'll use "reproduction") of works that are to be despensed to that medium.

Like I mentioned some one will answer with something more realized as modern day practice. Only will show the situation as it is however.We might live longer knowing that your email was print,reproducable,but copyrighted for 75 years. Howebeit,it should have had a loc #. To be defendable,or to be 'authorized'to be so. .. where I am asking ..if any render,or reader would have been notified of said copyright.

Would certainly be on the side of a 'registered copyright',rather than a non-registered copyright,if it was that my intention was the 'expectation of copyright'. This would be more than my expectation since a registered copyright would be fact,with nothing precipitous. Loc #s are an easier way to validate,and refer to any way.

I'd love to see you link something to that email claim, not to mention why you're trying to conflate privacy and copyright.

Emails absolutely do have an expectation of privacy, just as snailmail does: US v Warshak

I'm at work, or I'd continue to shred your post in more detail. Maybe I'll remember to later. In the meantime, you likely should try to look up some inforamtion, and aim for a clue before posting on the topic again.

This patent in this case (http://www.google.com/patents/US7346545) and all other method patents that have no corresponding systems should be invalidated. There isn't anything in the primary claim that is innovative or non-obvious and the patent is basically trying to protect a business model. The patent protects nearly the same model that television stations have been using for decades, except it applies to online video.

This patent in this case (http://www.google.com/patents/US7346545) and all other method patents that have no corresponding systems should be invalidated. There isn't anything in the primary claim that is innovative or non-obvious and the patent is basically trying to protect a business model. The patent protects nearly the same model that television stations have been using for decades, except it applies to online video.

Thanks for the link! I always try to read the claims of the patent in articles like this, because often the articles present a bit of an oversimplification that sounds a lot more trivial than the actual patent (especially on other tech sites). However, in this case the patent really is as trivial as it sounds. The patent claims read like the school exercise where you have to explain how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich explicitly without skipping any steps. You end up with 11 steps, but you're still just making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Can anyone help me here? I don't think I understand what an obvious invention is. Sometimes we pay for content upfront (DVDs, CDs, theater tickets). Other times, that same content is paid for by advertising (movies on TV, radio). Somehow doing both these things on a single webpage is non-obvious?

Oh, and what's the difference, exactly, between a method implemented in software, and the same method implemented in hardware? (Hint: the answer is "none, really".)

I'm definitely not an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. To me, the difference seems to be the degree to which you're defining a specific mechanism to accomplish something vs. a higher level idea. To patent a piece of hardware, there are specific proposed details about the way that piece of hardware works that others are free to try to work around. The idea itself isn't patented. This actually drives innovation, as people try to find other ways to accomplish the same thing.

In my mind the problem with software patents is the separation between the idea and the implementation is insufficient. Generally the implementation is the code, and is covered by copyright. The patents never seem to disclose the actual implementation techniques in enough detail that someone could accomplish the same idea using a different mechanism. It always seems to be more general as in the case of this article, where what was patented was the idea of showing an ad prior to a video in lieu of paying for it. There is no way I can implement that same thing in a way that doesn't infringe the patent because there is no implementation specified in the patent at all.

Anyway, I'm not a patent lawyer, so take that for what it's worth, but it's a fun discussion anyway.

A side trip,however valid here in context.. Can anybody tell me,when there is a copyright created, it is actually filed with the Library Of Congress, having a valid LOC # and a file with the copyright office ? Then that is the actual identity controlling validity of a copyrighted item and/or its claim to having a copyright. Having paid a certain filing fee to record it with the LOC.*

For the past few decades in the United States, copyright is automatic when the work is created. You don't need to file anything.

Filing might help if you ever need to defend your copyright, however. I don't know what actually happens if you do that.

yeah I would like some one to clarify this because there is no point of reference if there is no loc #. Mean "i wrote a 'c'in the software back underneath code line 4 billion,and I've been taking liscencing fees since that time. Haven't had any problem with collecting royalties. Or paying taxes on them. Not really any problem with catching software pirates either" .

See what I mean.

From my understanding anything that has ever been legally copyrighted has a record of it in the LOC. Much the same as that system used in the Patent office clarifying itself as having been patented.

There is different rationale for the system though - periodicals,magazines,etc. These may enter only on occasion and act with some kind of mechanism to preface at casual the number,number(s) etc.

Must be much the same or similiarity in many European,and modern societies. Some one to clarify would be appreciated.

In the US, copyright is automatic once something is fixed on a medium. That said, you cannot sue over a copyright unless it's been registered before initiating said suit (so far as I can tell, there's no grandfathering here, meaning you can register it the day before you sue for infringement, and that won't mean you can only go after them for use after registration).

This was one argument that partly came up in Oracle v Google, as Oracle simply reigstered "Java," but was attempting to claim infringement of individual components (which were not individually registered, and the "world as a whole" was not filed as a collective work; the argument was standing to sue since the API's weren't registered themselves; we're of course ignoring the fact that APIs are, by nature, functional and therefor ineligible for copyright protection).

Your statement is interesting in that 'fixed on a medium' I believe is simply conotation of a 'motion to copyright',rather than an exact copyright- that is something which is done previous to do so (as I mentioned as putting a 'c'on paper situation). The idea that 'fixed'on a medium however,and registered,I would like to infer to the Supreme Courts idea that 'an email has no expectation of privacy',and that while an email may be 'fixed on a medium',your description would might imply that an email would have the expectation of copyright.

Thus motion filed.- in simularity of descriptions. I would file a motion that my emails are copyrighted.

There is certainly the ideal that copyright is not a 'civil right' (although measured to the restraints of common law),and that contributively it is an aristocratic idealogue in precondition for being so.

Believe you are only right about 15% of the description. Maybe somebody can fill in the blanks,for example there is probably a link to the library of congress,that directly links to the form/application for copyright- that shows fees,filing requirements etc. Date lines,media type examples.

Certainly though if what you said was true the rest of the 85%. Emails would be copyrighted. A much simpler take to what can be a stake in the copyright idea. A copyright lawyer will just sit there and look,they will not say anything most likely.

I had in an earler post refered to the idea of the constitution in which 'freedom of the press' was actually the 'right to print'. That statement is mostly true,and is not entirely not true,it is moreso a definition of the same in a,and b. That is definition 2. I mean to imply that for example an email,because its medium is electronic,is not a medium contrasted to: " because it is 'print' it is afixed to a medium".This is the functional situation. Implying for example,the Library of Congress itself is in danger of copyright law when it will encapsulate 'copy' (i'll use "reproduction") of works that are to be despensed to that medium.

Like I mentioned some one will answer with something more realized as modern day practice. Only will show the situation as it is however.We might live longer knowing that your email was print,reproducable,but copyrighted for 75 years. Howebeit,it should have had a loc #. To be defendable,or to be 'authorized'to be so. .. where I am asking ..if any render,or reader would have been notified of said copyright.

Would certainly be on the side of a 'registered copyright',rather than a non-registered copyright,if it was that my intention was the 'expectation of copyright'. This would be more than my expectation since a registered copyright would be fact,with nothing precipitous. Loc #s are an easier way to validate,and refer to any way.

I'd love to see you link something to that email claim, not to mention why you're trying to conflate privacy and copyright.

Emails absolutely do have an expectation of privacy, just as snailmail does: US v Warshak

I'm at work, or I'd continue to shred your post in more detail. Maybe I'll remember to later. In the meantime, you likely should try to look up some inforamtion, and aim for a clue before posting on the topic again.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.